Yes, that’s my understanding too, California cannot go go bankrupt. I don’t know whether it can conceivably default on its bond obligations, though.
I think the biggest risk is that Prop 13 gets undone. The biggest hope is that the state addresses the absurdly unsustainable state-backed pension system.
Yes, that’s my understanding too, California cannot go go bankrupt. I don’t know whether it can conceivably default on its bond obligations, though.
I think the biggest risk is that Prop 13 gets undone. The biggest hope is that the state addresses the absurdly unsustainable state-backed pension system.
Yes, that’s my understanding too, California cannot go go bankrupt. I don’t know whether it can conceivably default on its bond obligations, though.
I think the biggest risk is that Prop 13 gets undone. The biggest hope is that the state addresses the absurdly unsustainable state-backed pension system.
I worry about this too. I have two rental units. Tenants in one unit do have dogs, and I wonder if I should ever rent to dog owners again. I have a $3M umbrella policy in addition to the regular homeowner & fire insurance policies.
Lately I’ve been reading up on real estate LLCs. In theory an LLC looks like an ideal liability limitation vehicle, it’s just really unfortunate that the California limited liability tax is $800/yr and applies to all corporations and LLCs.
I worry about this too. I have two rental units. Tenants in one unit do have dogs, and I wonder if I should ever rent to dog owners again. I have a $3M umbrella policy in addition to the regular homeowner & fire insurance policies.
Lately I’ve been reading up on real estate LLCs. In theory an LLC looks like an ideal liability limitation vehicle, it’s just really unfortunate that the California limited liability tax is $800/yr and applies to all corporations and LLCs.
I worry about this too. I have two rental units. Tenants in one unit do have dogs, and I wonder if I should ever rent to dog owners again. I have a $3M umbrella policy in addition to the regular homeowner & fire insurance policies.
Lately I’ve been reading up on real estate LLCs. In theory an LLC looks like an ideal liability limitation vehicle, it’s just really unfortunate that the California limited liability tax is $800/yr and applies to all corporations and LLCs.
I worry about this too. I have two rental units. Tenants in one unit do have dogs, and I wonder if I should ever rent to dog owners again. I have a $3M umbrella policy in addition to the regular homeowner & fire insurance policies.
Lately I’ve been reading up on real estate LLCs. In theory an LLC looks like an ideal liability limitation vehicle, it’s just really unfortunate that the California limited liability tax is $800/yr and applies to all corporations and LLCs.
I worry about this too. I have two rental units. Tenants in one unit do have dogs, and I wonder if I should ever rent to dog owners again. I have a $3M umbrella policy in addition to the regular homeowner & fire insurance policies.
Lately I’ve been reading up on real estate LLCs. In theory an LLC looks like an ideal liability limitation vehicle, it’s just really unfortunate that the California limited liability tax is $800/yr and applies to all corporations and LLCs.
[quote=CA renter]I fault the govt 100% for the mess they’ve created. What they should have done is stand behind the original FDIC and SIPC insurance, and let the chips fall where they may.[/quote]
I agree, they probably should have left the banks fail and insure the deposits, even the ones above the FDIC limits. Those deposits would then get moved wherever the depositor decides. This would have the effect of recapitalizing the surviving banks, and maybe the gov’t could provide additional capitalization if necessary. And the “toxic assets” of the failed banks would be liquidated at auction. So the market could figure out a value for them, instead of the current case where they’re hidden away in the balance sheets with some bullshit valuation. (Still waiting for THAT shoe to drop.)
I think it would have cost us a lot less money, and left us with a stronger banking system. And we’d have a few more unemployed idiot bankers.
[quote=CA renter]I fault the govt 100% for the mess they’ve created. What they should have done is stand behind the original FDIC and SIPC insurance, and let the chips fall where they may.[/quote]
I agree, they probably should have left the banks fail and insure the deposits, even the ones above the FDIC limits. Those deposits would then get moved wherever the depositor decides. This would have the effect of recapitalizing the surviving banks, and maybe the gov’t could provide additional capitalization if necessary. And the “toxic assets” of the failed banks would be liquidated at auction. So the market could figure out a value for them, instead of the current case where they’re hidden away in the balance sheets with some bullshit valuation. (Still waiting for THAT shoe to drop.)
I think it would have cost us a lot less money, and left us with a stronger banking system. And we’d have a few more unemployed idiot bankers.
